| |
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
|
|
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 4, 2007
|
|
TrojanBob, think of it a little like identity theft. Suppose someone stole your identity and was going around passing themselves off as you. I think you'd get a bit peeved. When the media went gah-gah after USC's 2004 title win and then the 2005 USC/Texas dance paraded in front of our eyes, it was all Re-Pete this and Re-Pete that, and when the 2005 NCG approached, it was THREE-Pete this and THREE-Pete !!! oooohhh, aaaaahhh that. All the while, LSU fans knew that USC had won ONE NC ... that one being for the 2004 season. From the constant BS babble about the 2003 "People's Champion" to the drumbeat of Re-Pete and then potential Three-Pete, well it became cartoon-like. It was the reason the LSU fan put up that billboard across from the USC campus to REMIND people that you must play by the rules and win the game to claim that identity as champion. No-Pete is a combination term, showing disdain for being robbed of our 2003 identity and the potential for USC losing the ONE championship that they actually own due to the RegBush scandal. No-Pete is accurate ... albeit, at this point, a bit of wishful thinking ... LOL
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 4, 2007
|
|
DD, I know you think that my position is entirely made up of my own opinions. Rather, my position's cornerstone is the NCAA's own words: "It is important that policies and procedures be established so as to DETER (my emphasis) violations and not merely to discover their existence after they have taken place." (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/genrel/auto_
pdf/NCAA-Princ1-Inst-Control.pdf).
Not my words, the NCAA's.
And the fact that USC has recently changed its open door policies? Comment? If those policies did not pose a threat to the program, why did they change them? Even No-Pete admits NOW that agents have no place being around still-eligible players. HE SAID THIS !!!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:90
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 27, 2008
|
|
The NCAA are crooks, they are pimpping college players!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 4, 2007
|
|
Real Guro, I tend to agree with you because the trending over the years has shown that, especially on the big-time teams, many players are just using college as a minor league for the pros. The NCAA has begun to crack down though using the APR standards to punish programs that are not, at least, trying to get these guys through academics. I still think if colleges made their guys go to class, that the trade-off of education for playing time would be OK even when the programs make so much money off them. But in recent decades, you are right that its gotten worse. It's almost like we should have a minor league system for those guys who don't care for the education part. But these are rather radical ideas ... and in the meantime, I think the NCAA should enforce its rules.
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
Rather, my position's cornerstone is the NCAA's own words: "It is important that policies and procedures be established so as to DETER (my emphasis) violations and not merely to discover their existence after they have taken place."cajun - anyone without a h-on for USC would read your post to Trojan Bob and understand completely what the "cornerstone" of your position is.
Nobody is arguing that the NCAA doesn't require policies and procedures to deter violations, etc. So that you're on-board with this means little.
You refuse to explain how you connect the dots. We all agree that the NCAA requires "institutional control"...we all agree that players taking money from agents renders them ineligible...we all agree it's within NCAA rules for agents/players to interact (well, every other day you believe this, but the rest of us acknowledge it daily) -so when you roll these things out as your "position" - that's just not the case. It's the connecting of dots that's actually your case, and based on what you've written so far - this boils down to:
- USC is in violation of NCAA rules by allowing something that's allowable, but too much-
Period. End of story. That's the whole basis (other than your fixation on USC football) of your position.
- The NCAA allows agents/athletes to interact.
- The NCAA in fact provides athletes support in their "testing the waters" with agents.
- The NCAA puts no restrictions on # times, length of time, where or when as it relates to agents/player exchanges.
But USC is guilty of "something" because they allowed agents to attend practices.
And the fact that USC has recently changed its open door policies? Comment? If those policies did not pose a threat to the program, why did they change them? Even No-Pete admits NOW that agents have no place being around still-eligible players. HE SAID THIS !!!First, please provide a link to the quote where Carroll said that agents have no place being around still-eligible players (I'm genuinely interested in reading it). I'm not suggesting he didn't say this, but that sentiment is very different from the quote I did read, that went something like (and I'm paraphrasing, the comment didn't strike me as remarkable) - "I respect the agents and know they have a job to do, but they don't belong at practices."
As for why the change -
- Could it be he's tired of his team, imminently more talented than the rest of the PAC, losing two conference games per year?... and so he's thinking fewer distractions and greater focus on football would be good?
- Could it be he'd like to keep his best players around for more than 3 years, and so while they will always have the option of leaving early and plenty of agents looking to represent them, maybe by not providing so much access to players he'll keep a player or two along the way?
At the end of the day, I don't know why PC made the change but here's a question for you: I'm guessing that LSU's policy that you've posted about doesn't date back to 1920...right? So, there was a day that the policy existed, and then the next day it was in place - which according to cajuninca means LSU must have been in violation of NCAA rules before the policy change....I mean, why else would they need to change anything, right?
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 4, 2007
|
|
DD, the quote comes from http://www.joemcknight.org/look-out-for-agents.php. Hint: read the whole story because I'm sure you will be inclined to try to spin No-Pete's quote in a way that is not supported by the tone and other facts in the story (such as him supporting "a rule passed by the NFL players association last year that banned agents from speaking to underclassmen").
RE: institutional control
"USC is in violation of NCAA rules by allowing something that's allowable, but too much.'"
That's not my position. Once again, you focus on what is strictly "legal" and I keep pointing out that, despite recognizing the obvious free association underpinnings of comments in NCAA docs, the NCAA obviously is trying to crack down on agent/player contact:
- See the player advisory panel I've mentioned that would fulfill all of the agent-like needs a still-eligible player needs, leaving the only need for an agent being when a player wants to end his eligibility and get on with a pro career.
- Recent history (like the Fla St. case) where the NCAA will not accept anything but a diligent and determined effort by a program to unearth violations by external parties (agents).
There is no violation of NCAA institutional control if no eligibility rules are ever broken. A program could host unsupervised agent/player parties in the chancellor's office every weekend after the game or pair up agents and players in the same apartment !!! LOL. These would be foolish actions, but not in and of themselves a violation. Only if, under such policies, one of those agents makes a secretive offer or benefit and the player accepts does the institutional control hammer come down.
I know you don't think there is any evidence of this in the rules. Agent/player contact is allowed ... agent/player contact is allowed ... agent/player contact is allowed ... yes, I get it. That's because 1) it's a free country and 2) at any moment, a player might decide to forego his remaining eligibility. That does NOT mean that the NCAA doesn't want its member institutions to implement policies to DETER violations, and if they choose not to do so, to punish them.
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
Hint: read the whole story because I'm sure you will be inclined to try to spin No-Pete's quote in a way that is not supported by the tone and other facts in the story...
Oh, this is special. You're worried about me spinning PC's comments? You're a funny one, cajun -
Here's cajunica's take on PC's quote: "Even No-Pete admits NOW that agents have no place being around still-eligible players. HE SAID THIS !!!"
Here's D_D's take on PC's quote: "I'm not suggesting he didn't say this, but that sentiment is very different from the quote I did read, that went something like (and I'm paraphrasing, the comment didn't strike me as remarkable) - 'I respect the agents and know they have a job to do, but they don't belong at practices.'"
Here's the actual quote: "I just don't think it's the right place for them to be doing their work," Carroll said. "I respect they have a job to do. It's just not going on at the practice field. They have their time outside of practice."
Yeah, cajun - it's Devil_David we have to worry about spin with...lol
....(such as him supporting "a rule passed by the NFL players association last year that banned agents from speaking to underclassmen").Here again you confuse things, and your hatred of USC plays a trick on you. PC's support of a rule banning agents from speaking to underclassmen has ZERO to do with NCAA rules, USC's abiding by NCAA rules (or not), the RB situation or anything of the sort. What college football coach who makes a living coaching future NFL players would not support a ban on agents speaking to underclassmen? Seriously, this shouldn't have been hard for you to figure out at all.
That's not my position. Once again, you focus on what is strictly "legal" and I keep pointing out that, despite recognizing the obvious free association underpinnings of comments in NCAA docs, the NCAA obviously is trying to crack down on agent/player contact:Pardon me for focusing on what's legal, cajun - but I thought that was the point.
If anything, the NCAA is an organization whose foundation is seemingly millions of rules and regulations established in such minutiae that the organization is described as a bunch of Nazis more than anything benevolent. The NCAA has taken the time and made the investment necessary to make sure that players do not get travel home for a family funeral paid for by the University, but you want us all to believe that on an issue as giant and viewable as players/agents - they're reluctant to really let it be known what they want?
Perhaps the NCAA is wanting to "crack down on agents" (or will in the future) - I think that would be a good idea. But you're letting that PC-pin cushion fantasy of yours get the better of you if you believe that when they do "crack down," they'll do it in vague, open to interpretation, kinder and gentler administration of "notions" way.
There is no violation of NCAA institutional control if no eligibility rules are ever broken.Likewise, a player breaking eligibility rules does not mean a violation of institutional control took place.
That does NOT mean that the NCAA doesn't want its member institutions to implement policies to DETER violations, and if they choose not to do so, to punish them.And you're saying USC doesn't have polices and procedures in place to monitor its program?
This is my point about your argument essentially being, "USC allowed something that's allowable, but did it too much" - you haven't explained where SC was short on policies and procedures. All you're doing is assuming that because agents were seen on the practice field (which is allowed by the NCAA), that this means SC lacks institutional control.
The example you gave of "lack o | |
